Rick Perry: I “stepped right in it” when I compared homosexuality to alcoholism

posted at 4:41 pm on June 20, 2014 by Allahpundit

What he said is less interesting on the merits than it is as a sign of how his strategy’s changed since 2012.

The Texas Republican Party this month adopted a platform supporting access to “reparative therapy” for gays and lesbians, a widely discredited process intended to change sexual orientation. In response to an audience question about it Wednesday night, Perry said he did not know whether the therapy worked.

Commonwealth Club interviewer Greg Dalton then asked him whether he believes homosexuality is a disorder.

“Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that,” Perry said. “I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”

The large crowd gathered at the InterContinental Mark Hopkins hotel on Nob Hill included many Perry supporters. But the comment still drew a murmur of disbelief.

That was Wednesday night. Watch the first clip below to see where he was just a day later. He hasn’t disowned what he said, but you can feel him almost physically wince at the fact that he let himself get sidetracked by an issue that has nothing to do with what he’s got cooking for his next campaign. In fact, one interesting subplot to Perry 2.0 is how, in a broad way, it may resemble Romney 2.0. Remember, Mitt ran as a strong social conservative in 2008; he flamed out because (a) social conservatism was a minor matter in an election dominated by Iraq and, later, the financial crisis and (b) if you were eager to back a social con with moderate leanings, you had the more authentic Huckabee as an option instead. In 2012, Romney dumped social conservatism as a key part of his plank and ran on his true strength, as the business savant who’d turn the economy around after four years of struggle. Perry had a strong business record too, of course, as governor during Texas’s long economic boom, but between his immigration stumbles, his poor campaigning, and his late-ish entry, he could never snatch that niche away from Mitt. By the end of his campaign, he had seized on — ta da — social conservatism as a key distinction between him and Romney. Watch the second clip below to refresh your memory. That sounds … a lot different than what he says in the first clip about pushing our disagreements on social policy to the side and making sure all Americans have a job.

In other words, Perry’s going to run as the “business candidate” in 2016. That’s why he’s doing splashy tours of other states to try to lure companies to Texas, replete with triumphant appearances in national media whenever he entices a big one to make the move. You can already see the different “brands” in the 2016 field shaping up — Paul’s the libertarian, Cruz is the tea partier, Walker’s the guy who beat labor, Rubio’s the guy who’ll compromise to get big things like immigration done, and Rick Perry’s the guy who’ll get you a job. That’s a mighty good brand to have after eight years of Obamanomics and he knows it, which is why he’s kicking himself here for having been thrown off message for even a day. He’s not going to go quite as far as Mitch Daniels and call for a “truce” on social issues — he needs to remain a social con in good standing to have a shot in the primaries — but I think he’s operating more or less along those lines at this point. His “alcoholism” comments were a minor breach of that truce. I’ll bet he doesn’t repeat the error.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Of course, he does this. He hooked me in 2012 with his Social Security is a Ponzi scheme statement, only to walk it back. That was before he decided to tell us that people who do not support giving special privileges to illegal aliens were without a heart.

Since that point, it seems to me that Perry has been showing that he is more supportive of illegal aliens and people who live in other nations than his fellow countrymen.

An (honest) Libertarian would have had no trouble with the answer: “I’m not qualified to address that issue. What I do believe is that consenting adults are free to engage in private sexual activity without support or interference from the government.”

That “reparative therapy” plank of the Texas GOP platform is preposterous and as outrageously Big Government as a Liberal policy of government-funded abortions on demand…

He’s right. It’s a lifestyle choice. One I refuse to embrace and celebrate but one I will ignore if left alone by its practitioners and advocates. Whatever you do in your home is nothing I care about. I start caring when you get in my face and tell me I have to embrace it and try to silence me and take away my right to disapprove of it.

“Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that,” Perry said. “I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”

Purely in terms of your genes having an effect on your behavior or personality, it was a good comparison just not very PC. A better comparison would be to something like left-handedness, autism, or cleft-palate.

Rick Perry’s anti-gay marriage ad in 2012 would have worked, and may still if he has the guts to stand up on this issue. Yeah, the alcoholism comment was a bit much, but I was thinking maybe Perry was about the only one with the fortitude to stand up and let the traditional marriage issue rise again in our favor. Now he’s backtracking or whatever. If Perry can’t stand up for traditional marriage anymore, then I don’t know what good he is.

Rick Perry’s the guy who’ll get you a job
Yeah, that does sounds like Romney. Not good.
Perry is the “competence” candidate, despite the …. “oops.”

I think Perry is right on this, up until his back tracking.
astonerii on June 20, 2014 at 4:51 PM

I’m holding out for a politician who, when s/he says something that’s correct, but politically incorrect, doesn’t backtrack. They are few and far between. Perry shouldn’t have given into the “gay” mafia and just let GLAAD be mad.

Gender confusion is a mental disorder as is addiction. They go to a lot of trouble to “help” addicts. Why not homosexuals. However, he needs to be careful not to give the socialist nitpickers anything to sidetrack us with and stick to the important things.

Homosexualists, so to speak, have been demanding recognition for “it” being “inherent” or “from birth it began” so why the outrage that Perry’s saying about the same thing, as to comparing it with “alcoholism,” some inherent biological quality that “makes” people drink or engage in homosexuality? Same process if you think these are inherited, or, in one’s DNA, “at birth” it exists.

I disagree with both of these perspectives, however, but in Perry’s case and the uproar about his comments, he’s only expressing the same perspective as those who insist homosexuality or “homosexuals” are “made that way”.

I like Cruz but I would rather keep him where he is for now. Enough with Senators or Congressmen running a Governor is a better choice. I like Perry and Walker…
sandee on June 20, 2014 at 5:15 PM

Being a governor doesn’t bestow some sort of superiority. Ask Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. Or countless other current Guvs. That’s not to say it’s vice versa, that X office is better than the governor office – just that you gotta go by the man (or woman) on his-her own merits not on the office.

It’s in the mind, however, not genetic, not organic; in other words, “psychological”.
Lourdes on June 20, 2014 at 5:21 PM

Yes, with the lack of a “born gay” gene, the only other option is the “nuture” impact forming the person’s mindset on matters of sex. It would be the same with someone with a shoe sex-fetish – nothing genetic, the person got psychologically messed up.

If I were running for President, I would stay away from any social issue that would allow the media to remove the focus from Obama and the Democrats’ dismal record running both the economy (ESPECIALLY the economy) and foreign policy.

The last thing a successful candidate to defeat Hillary (or Elizabeth Warren or whoever0 needs is to get bogged down in arguments about gay rights, abortion, and contraception…because, quite frankly, these are side shows. The United States is on the verge of collapse, and while moral disintegration certainly plays a role, it won’t get the tax code reformed and rein in entitlement spending.

All of THAT being said, I’m supporting Perry for the nomination. He’s the best guy for the job (pun intended).

If I were running for President, I would stay away from any social issue that would allow the media to remove the focus from Obama and the Democrats’ dismal record running both the economy (ESPECIALLY the economy) and foreign policy.

The last thing a successful candidate to defeat Hillary (or Elizabeth Warren or whoever0 needs is to get bogged down in arguments about gay rights, abortion, and contraception…because, quite frankly, these are side shows. The United States is on the verge of collapse, and while moral disintegration certainly plays a role, it won’t get the tax code reformed and rein in entitlement spending.

All of THAT being said, I’m supporting Perry for the nomination. He’s the best guy for the job (pun intended).

DRayRaven on June 20, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Mitt basically did just that and the Democrats were smart enough to recognize that distracting people with a side show – and you’re right that that’s what it is – was their only chance so they manufactured the “war on women” and here we are with another four years under the Dear Leader.

The bottom video affirms the right of religious freedom. It can’t be characterized as “anti-gay” except by those who characterize “anti-gay” as anything less than bowing down at the holy altar of approval-of-everything- gay.

When support for traditional marriage is characterized as anti-gay, hatred and homophobia, you know how desperate they are, not just to demonize, but to criminalize any opposition to their agenda.

Perry was right. Homosexual behavior is self-destructive just as alcoholism is.

It care not for what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. I do not need to know.
What repulses me,and does them no favours, is when they throw their balls in your face during their parades & any other opportunity that they have to announce their predispositions.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Texas Gov. Rick Perry, during a visit that focused primarily on economic issues, drew on a reference to alcoholism to explain his view of homosexuality.

Perry’s comments to the Commonwealth Club of California came after Texas’ Republican Convention on Saturday sanctioned platform language allowing Texans to seek voluntary counseling to “cure” being gay.

The San Francisco Chronicle http://bit.ly/1oWq0qR reports that in response to a question about it, Perry said he did not know whether the therapy worked.

Perry, a former and potential future GOP presidential candidate, was then asked whether he believed homosexuality was a disorder.

The paper says that the governor responded that “whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that.”

He said: “I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”

The Texas Republican platform stand on the issue is in contrast to California and New Jersey, which have previously banned licensed professionals from providing such therapy to minors.

During the bulk of his talk, Perry held up his own state as a model for responsible energy production and economic growth in California.

Perry said he believes Texas is leading the way in achieving energy independence by producing crude oil and electricity in many forms, including solar power.

Perry also suggested that deregulating electricity had started a boom for renewable energy in Texas, which he called the nation’s leading developer of wind energy.

Perry said shale drilling techniques had doubled oil production in Texas, and he urged Californians to tap the full energy potential in its Monterey Shale.

On Tuesday, Perry drove up to California’s state capital of Sacramento in a Tesla Model S electric car — underscoring his desire to lure a Tesla battery factory to Texas.

I thought Perry’s comparison was mostly pitch-perfect…never mentioning religion or sin, even a bit of science in there. It would have been better to add bisexuality as well. Then you can’t be accused of being “anti-gay”.

As I said in 2012, I prefer the candidate who talks the least about lady parts or sex in general. The less I hear about that stuff in politics, the happier I am. That said, I know that I have exactly zero influence on who gets the GOP nomination, so all I can do is sit back and watch.

You can already see the different “brands” in the 2016 field shaping up — Paul’s the libertarian, Cruz is the tea partier, Walker’s the guy who beat labor, Rubio’s the guy who’ll compromise to get big things like immigration done, and Rick Perry’s the guy who’ll get you a job.

Rand Paul the libertarian and Ted Cruz the tea partier? Really? I expected more from Allah.

So the meaning of the tea party is shifting before our eyes to a point I don’t think the people who began the movement would even recognize it.

I know Allah has responded to comments before and if the comment gods would grant me that wish, I would live for him to explain what makes Ted Cruz the tea party candidate over rand Paul. If there was a list of criteria to check, I want to see where Ted Cruz got more checks for adhering to tea party principles over rand Paul.

However, people do have a right to pursue therapy as they choose with their therapist.

By the numbers, over half of the LGTB community identifies as bisexual.

There is nothing wrong with any of them choosing therapy to help reinforce the side of their sexuality they want. If a bisexual wants therapy to help them be happy in a same-sex role, there is nothing wrong with that. If a bisexual wants therapy to help them be happy in an opposite-sex role, there’s also nothing wrong with that.

Whether a therapist can change a lifelong gay into a straight or a lifelong straight into a gay is probably a different question. But a majority of LGBT’s can benefit from therapy in the role they choose to emphasize.

And what about “choice”? The only people they don’t want to have a choice are bi’s or gays who want to take a shot at determining their own relationships.

I watched a Dragnet rerun last week. You know, Jack Webb as Sergeant Friday. Their captain was talking about how their job was harder now, as society was losing respect for authority, and that some even considered homosexuality as normal and acceptable. This was in 1967.

The Right has always missed the opportunity to base arguments on this fact due to squeamishness with the topic. It isn’t just the therapy argument either, it impinges on a lot of disputes over sexuality politics.

.
Whether you’re ‘born with’ a predisposition to the temptation, or not … the willful acceptance of it constitutes a “lifestyle choice”.
.
And now, to tip the applecart completely over … the practice of sodomy is an abnormality.

What he “stepped in” was truth. An uncomfortable truth, but a truth nevertheless.

There are actually a lot of influences on alcoholism, both genetic and learned. There is a genetic association with alcoholism that is very well described in the medical / biochemical literature. A deficiency in an enzyme called Alcohol Dehydrogenase is strongly associated with alcoholism. People deficient in this enzyme keep their “buzz” longer, and do not get hung over. People with this enzymatic deficiency are therefore much more likely to end up becoming alcoholics. There are, of course, innumerable genes that have some effect on the propensity to be a substance abuser. And many people feel driven to drink, as a result of many genetic and learned influences. But ultimately, the decision to put the bottle to your lips is a voluntary decision. And reformed alcoholics frequently struggle with their inner demons the rest of their lives.

Similarly, there are probably many genetic influences on sexual behavior. There are, no doubt, many people who feel driven toward homosexual behavior, and can not change their inner drives any more than a long-time alcoholic can extinguish his cravings. But the final pathway is ultimately voluntary – even if it is difficult to steer away from your inner drives.

And homosexuality and alcoholism are, ultimately, about satisfying inner cravings – with results that produce no real benefits for society at large, at a very large cost in terms of public health.

Like many on this thread, I don’t care what you do in your bedroom – as long as you keep it in your bedroom. The moment that you try to force me to accept homosexuality as “equal” to heterosexual behavior, then you have crossed the line with me. Because it is not equal, by any objective measure.

Sadly most have been so gullibley brainwashed by “The gay invention” (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f and http://www.DrJudithReisman.org) so badly they even imagine the linguistic error “homosex-” is a part of rational vocabulary. Kind of like “gay marriage” fraud. I think we should also legalize two-sided triangles; just because you think something’s missing in that doesn’t mean you should be allowed to minimize the happiness of those non-three-sided entities, and you shouldn’t be so narrow-minded as to demand them be polygonal for acceptance. Biblical and historical illiteracy have sadly taken over to the point where most “arguments” are entirely emotive and irrational to the point of depending solely on that good old flatly mendacious ad argumentum baculum. God save us.

PS
As with creation vs evolution who were those who discredited reparative therapy, those interested in truth or those with a vested interest in the outcome, even to the point of mendacity to bring it about. Like when sodomites terrorized shrinks into calling it the sickness it really is. Some scientific advancement that, terrorism at your service to achieve the desired result, something they’d hypocritically fight to the death were the roles reversed: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda note-58http://traditionalvalues.org/content/article/30884/Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal

That “reparative therapy” plank of the Texas GOP platform is preposterous and as outrageously Big Government as a Liberal policy of government-funded abortions on demand…

jbspry on June 20, 2014 at 4:51 PM

‘Reparative therapy’ is not preposterous, nor is it widely discredited, as the left wants to insist.

It is simply no longer politically correct to believe that homosexuals can change.

It was common enough until the homofascists hounded the APA into changing their position on homosexuality as a disorder, thereby ruling it to be normal. When that happened the practitioners who had been doing reparative therapy for years were suddenly abandoned by the broader organization.

The same crowd who demanded that homosexuality no longer be considered a psychological disorder also demand that reparative therapy be condemned. The reason should be obvious.

But it is not about science, it’s about political pressure. Just like the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was driven by pressure from activist groups, not by science.

Wait. How is a plank that allows parents options in the treatment of their children outrageous big government? I would think the California law that bans such therapy is more of a big government move.

Occams Stubble on June 20, 2014 at 5:16 PM

It’s not primarily a big government vs. small government issue, but there’s no denying that the California law declaring all reparative therapy to be useless is far more expansive than a position that it should be available for those who want it.

There’s no denying, though, that the California law is a pander to a special interest group: homosexual activists, who object to reparative therapy based not on science or practicality, but because it suggests that homosexuality is something less than absolutely normal and desirable.

The government should not be pandering to special interest groups. That destroys the basic principle that no one is above the law.